The question is if a human society can get at all to zero net emission in 2070, if we do not include the population growth in our equation. The Body Temperature for humans, is generally around 98 degree Fahrenheit (37 degree Celsius). Between 1961 and 1990, the annual average temperature for the globe was around 57.2°F (14.0°C), according to the World Meteorological Organization. Every human needs to produce a certain amount of climate gases to maintain its body temperature. Yes, the problem is not only how to produce less climate gases, it is about how to achieve a zero net emission.

Isn't it a fact that, although fossil fuels are treacherous to our environment, I here no mention of global Aaimal agriculture, as the number one contributor of green house gasses. This fact is rarely mentioned. Animal agriculture emits all three of the most toxic greenhouse gasses yet this is pretty much unknown and rarely addressed.

Just a note to complete your fine ananalysis:
Opposition to rapid transition to a free carbon emissions economy is generally grounded in two lines of arguing : doubts about the validity of the current mainstream climate science projections attributing a major role to carbon emissions-induced climate change in the coming decades, on the one hand, and the cost of such a transition claimed to be prohibitive, on the other hand. While arguments of the first kind are gradually weakening in light of advances in climate science, those of the second kind often seem to prevail as cost considerations increasingly appear to be the major impediment to implementing the approach aimed at achieving the referred to transition in the time frame of a few decades as recommended by a growing number of top climate scientists as well as sustainable development advocates. From this perspective, focusing on short-term carbon emissions reduction may hamper longer term reduction conducing to the rapid transition to zero carbon emissions considered necessary to avoiding disastrous climate change impacts. Accordingly, developing technologies aimed at achieving short-term carbon emissions reduction is counterproductive by developing only partially clean energies diverts investment required to enhance development of the clean energies which must substitute all kinds of polluting energies in order to achieve the envisaged transition that becomes significantly more costly when extended over time. Moreover, a growing number of economists tend to consider that the estimated cost of the transition to carbon emissions free economy is highly inflated when often hidden costs of avoiding, or even delaying, such a transition are overlooked by not taking fully into account the cost of loss and damage caused by adverse climate impacts induced to a large extent by carbon emissions.

As to the argument that poor countries are not prepared to support the cost of the transition to a carbon emissions free economy, one should take account of the fact that climate change is a global issue and it is in the best interest of all, rich countries included, to work out an appropriate globally coordinated response entailing economic and technical assistance to poorer players often victims of climate change adverse impacts partly (if not mainly) induced by higher greenhouse-gas emissions of more industrialized countries.

My concern in relation to the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) is that it is solidly based on and generated by the Dominant Dualistic Perceptual Paradigm (DDPP) which has generated the Growth Model of Development (GMD) with its Rapid Resource Depletion (RRD), Pollution and GlobalClimate Change (P&GCC) and Global Monetary Collapse (GMC) and hence is "Backward Looking" in keeping with the "Feedback" principle on which this DDPP operates and seeks to "Reverse" what has been achieved without any understanding of the impossibility of going backwards in time to any one of the eras in which lower levels of atmospheric CO2 prevailed.

I strongly believe that what is required is that all available energy and all resources are dedicated to the task of moving forward and that moving forward involves a clear understanding of the Milankovitch cycles with the ice ages that they bring. These ice ages promise the destruction of all attempts at globalization by the species Homo sapiens and with a return period of just 200, 000 years the species is likely to encounter them at least 5 times in the course of its evolutionary progress as a species and hence has to learn how to overcome this impact and work within the constraints of these cycles.

The species has unconsciously engaged in a fairly successful process of liberating CO from the planets lithosphere and releasing it into the planets atmosphere. This promises to raise the planets temperature and prevent the disastrous impact of the next ice age.

This achievement has to be made conscious and owned so that a species consciousness can emerge along with a species process of strategic guidance that accepts species objectives at planetary, stellar, galactic and cosmic levels and works towards their realization in synchronicity with the Milankovitch and other cycles which the species is as yet un conscious of.

Towards this end it is necessary to generate a global network of individuals who are aware of the limitations of the currently Dominant Dualistic Perceptual Paradigm (DDPP) and who are able to freely move between it and the Emergent Unitive Perceptual Paradigm (EUPP). This global network can then function as a species wide perceptual mechanism and strategic guidance system that can perceive and navigate pathways to credible futures.

The per capita CO2 emissions graph draws me to the economics of the de-carbonized world. The marginal cost of de-carbonized energy, which is currently several times that of carbonized would mean that the brunt of this increase would have to be borne by the world at large, especially the poor and deprived. Such a cost would drive down prospects of growth which would have a cascade impact on the marginal cost of de-carbonized energy, to make it even worse.

How would this rising cost impact the world in this journey is something no economist is even remotely trying to decipher.

However, there is a lot of nuance in there and that makes it harder to sell to the public, and even to politicians who might otherwise be amenable to green energy.

I think that a two-track plan can do two things at once, and to illustrate, I will use the U.S.A. as an example (Germany would provide an even better example, but let's look at the medium case)

If the government of the U.S.A. banned the burning of coal effective Jan 1, 2020, the following would happen:
i) All *existing* coal-fired power plants in the U.S. would convert to natural gas
ii) CO2 emissions of those power plants would drop by half
iii) All other pollutants emitted by coal burning would disappear, and some of those are quite toxic to life, agriculture, livestock, and concrete and metal infrastructure
iv) No more fly ash problem
v) Water usage would fall from 1100 gallons per MegaWatt, down to 800 gallons per MegaWatt
vi) As natural gas becomes a baseload energy fuel, the radical price swings we see in the natural gas market would moderate
vii) Healthcare costs would fall
viii) Agriculture costs would fall
ix) Infrastructure costs related to acid rain/sulfur dioxide would fall (concrete and metal)
x) More coal available for export

Significant progress in CO2 and pollution levels would occur just from this one regulation to ban coal burning in the U.S. by 2020.

All of the then-present natural gas-fired power generation would need to continue -- especially to provide power at night time, as more and more solar and wind power capacity is added to the U.S. grid.

The U.S. will need to keep that natural gas power generation capacity perhaps even past 2050.

In addition to all of that, the U.S. government should still submit an INDC for 2030 (which it should rather easily meet via cutting coal burning) and also submit a non-binding Deep Decarbonization Pathway to 2050 plan.

In that way, rapid progress can happen within the next 5 years, at relatively low cost and high impact on CO2 emissions and on the far worse toxic pollutants, water usage and fly ash problems related to coal-fired generation -- and still have non-binding long term targets that can be fine-tuned over the coming decades.

The political economy makes it impossible: oil producing countries are super dependent on their sales and will make fail any such movement, at home and abroad. OPEC can't even control their member's behaviour, while its in their interest to keep prices high.

Even if a few countries decide to deep de-carbonised, energy is still a large part of production and in a competitive world, low carbon energy will be a large disadvantage. The countries's own companies would go bankrupt and the pollution will be imported (as is already the case), unless trade tariffs are used to set up a level playing field (by charging imports for their carbon emission/lead/mercury/.. ). But this sounds like fairy tale.. actually the opposite is happening right now: government negotiating the TPP, CETA and TTIP are actually abandoning sovereignty in environmental issues. These trade agreement write in stone the statu quo. Any country taking steps towards deep decarbonisation would be sued immediately in international private court (ISDS)

If we ever want to reverse the tide, it is crucial to stop these trade treaties. This is much more important than COP21 - which turns out to be not legally binding for the biggest polluters who can anyway easily tweak their emission figures.

I am skeptical about this article. This DDPP seems to be sponsored by the IEA which leads me to question all sorts of things. The general message of a little is not enough is common sense to anyone with common sense.

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.